White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Congress needs to pass a resolution immediately condemning the violation of the War Powers Act and demanding that Obama withdraw all military assistance to NATO in Libya. This is a bull**** power grab, and the nation will be worse off if the executive branch is allowed to get away with this. If possible, Congress should take this before the Supreme Court so that they can order military operations to cease.

Are you coming to bed?I can't. This is important.What?Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Congress needs to pass a resolution immediately condemning the violation of the War Powers Act and demanding that Obama withdraw all military assistance to NATO in Libya. This is a bull**** power grab, and the nation will be worse off if the executive branch is allowed to get away with this. If possible, Congress should take this before the Supreme Court so that they can order military operations to cease.

I agree but I doubt it will get through the Senate due to partisanship. Most of the democrats will vote against it because they won’t want to harm the President’s re-election chances and enough republicans will join with them (like McCain) because they have never met a war they don’t love.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

John F. Kennedy

Originally Posted by Montecresto

It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Originally Posted by GPS_Flex

I agree but I doubt it will get through the Senate due to partisanship. Most of the democrats will vote against it because they won’t want to harm the President’s re-election chances and enough republicans will join with them (like McCain) because they have never met a war they don’t love.

I guess it remains to be seen whether the legislature's reluctance to give up power to the executive will trump their partisanship. The historical record is a bit mixed on that point.

Are you coming to bed?I can't. This is important.What?Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

I ask again, where the declaration of war? Bush had to get Congressional resolutions, UN approval....but Obama needs nothing. No double standard here, no hypocrisy.

"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS. #MAGA

Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Originally Posted by liblady

but involved how, that's the question.

Whatever is needed for a particular situation.

There has been a movement for well over 60 years in the ME to united all Arab countries under one flag. If this ever happens, the fit is going to hit the shan and we should do everything possible to prevent it.

Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Originally Posted by apdst

Whatever is needed for a particular situation.

There has been a movement for well over 60 years in the ME to united all Arab countries under one flag. If this ever happens, the fit is going to hit the shan and we should do everything possible to prevent it.

i don't see how that could be a legitimate concern, really. they don't have stability in even their individual countries.

Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Originally Posted by American

I ask again, where the declaration of war? Bush had to get Congressional resolutions, UN approval....but Obama needs nothing. No double standard here, no hypocrisy.

No, Bush needed a declaraion of war and did not get one. His was not a case of working with the UN to stop killing civilians, but an invasion of a country without justification, proper justification. The two don't compare.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.